I know that, and I'm saying it's the installer that's the most important thing. for me.
I'd buy more games from other sites, if they provided installers,even if they still came with DRM.
Though I still prefer to get them DRM free on GOG, it's secondary, to having the installer.

Offline installers are kind of antithetical to platform clients, so it'll be interesting to see how much longer GOG offers them.

Well, if they want to continue to be a drm-free store, they must offer them forever,

That is correct. If.

deleted

I know some people won't like this but no they don't actually. They could scrap standalone installers and still remain DRM free. There is ZERO difference between what files you get packaged in a standalone installer and what you get via a Galaxy download. The game files themselves are EXACTLY the same, and so are their essential DRM free-ness.

Instead they could provide a way to re-install games downloaded via Galaxy without needing Galaxy to do so via install scripts (something they have talked about providing in the past) or they could provide a backup features that essentially allows one to create their own backup standalone installers within Galaxy using the games files downloaded via Galaxy. Any of these options would technically keep the independence of the games themselves from needing Galaxy (for such things as the ability to re-install, or to play the game), and in essence keep them DRM free.

The difference between Galaxy and standalone installers is delivery method, the way in which you get the game files from GOG. That's it.

What we are really talking about here is convenience, and for some people it is more convenient to use standalone installers due to various reasons.

No, absolutely not from my point of view. There is a difference between a standalone client and an account for accessing a special area for protected downloads. There wouldn't be then any difference between GOG and STEAM, besides doors would be open to implement more. A client for access only? That's the original definition of DRM!

And there has to be clear difference: Technical there would be a basic dependancy, nothing about being independent.

Can you make a make a backup and re-install it without Steam? In certain situations, sure, but largely no... and why is this? Because of the added DRM that Galaxy doesn't have (or more importantly the games on Galaxy). That's the difference...

We are talking about a specific area, the door is always open with or without standalone installers. It will always be up to GOG if they walk through that door or not.

That's nonsense, game clients are delivery methods nothing more used for getting games file from point A to point B. Galaxy is essentially a web browser, and it even it uses the same framework as Google Chrome.

DRM is added to clients, not an essential requirement of being a client. Stop looking at Steam and thinking it's the definition of how clients are done and thinking it's own faults are Galaxy's inherited faults. There not.

I said people wouldn't like it, and I can even see why... but that doesn't mean what I said isn't true and trying to call it something it's not also isn't true.

If you download the files via a standalone installer or via Galaxy, the files you get are exactly the same and DRM free. The delivery method doesn't change that. As long as GOG provides ways to keep games usable without Galaxy then it's just a convenient (for majority of people) as It still allows protection of games in the future possible death of GOG.

Ah of course: Instead of looking at the technical background it seems you are using relativization here. There is a defined way of the installation especially under Windows. Talking about others? There is the possibility for creating a backup. But everytime you should look for example at entries within the registry? Making a backup does not always help and it is harmful ignoring that without knowing what configuration is needed or done.

Again: No. With the installer downloaded you can decide when, where and how you want to install. That's the business of the user and not of any client deciding! If you choose that for yourself? Okay, but let everybody else having a choice and stop trying to do a snow job for this "optional" client.

There is a difference, because there is no choice furthermore and this delivery-method is just another snow job for DRM. Now you only need the browser for a download, that's it. The rest? Your own decision without any third-party software. And of course: You have a choice. And it is interesting: Nonsense? Oh yes, every different opinion than yours is that?

It's always the same: Instead having a harsher definition, people tend to relativize more and more. Galaxy may have a browser-component, yes. But then within a sudden: It's a complete webbrowser? Oh and it's just another delivery-method, so GOG can define that as their one and only. And then what? What is the next line crossing? That's the problem: No harsh definition and at the end the user is the loser, always. With this very wide definitions you can also define any Application-Store as package-repository. In the end? A complete closed system like modern smartphone can be defined as "free" and "open". Indeed: A package-repository is included, but it's not the only component. Enough said: Go on with relativizations. :) When GOG uses Galaxy, I'll stop using GOG. That's my choice, because having principles is not a bad idea! Giving them up because everyone else is doing that ... also a choice. ;-)

There will always be a technical challenge, as there is a technical challenge within creating the installers themselves to handle this. As I said GOG has already stated they were looking into adding install scripts for games that need them (this was stated way back in alpha). so essentially you could in theory zip the game files up and move them to another computer without Galaxy and run the install script creating the needed registry entries, etc. to play.

The user tells the client what to do, so really the user is still in complete control of these things. If you can essentially create your own installer that is independent of Galaxy then how is that ability taken away from you? Regardless this has little do do with your point of Galaxy being DRM, this doesn't change that point. This seems to come down to "I oppose Galaxy in any form, even if it can essentially give me the same exact benefits as the site installers" and would make managing games from GOG's side (ie on back end) easier... which is fine if your honest about it.

Anyway, you seem to be missing my point on this. I'm not advocating for getting rid of standalone installers. I'm just pointing out that regardless if GOG offers them or not, it has no real bearing on GOG being a DRM free storefront.

I'm sorry, but lack of options =/= DRM. Galaxy is not third party, you are buying from GOG... and Galaxy is a GOG creation therefor not third party. Even GOG's installers are created in-house from what I am aware, even they are a GOG creation.

It's fine to have different opinions by the way, we probably share the opinion that more options are a good thing. You just kind of missing the point of what I posted. But it is not an opinion that games files themselves (the thing that will contain the actual DRM) are the same regardless of delivery method, this is fact unless you know of a direct case were a game was different on Galaxy compared to on the site, so to yes to call Galaxy DRM in that context is nonsense.

the difference is that I can use any browser to download the installer over the website. heck, I can make my own browser and as long as I implement the well-defined, publicly available standards (HTML, JS, etc), then I can use even that to retrieve the installer from the website.
That doesn't work with the galaxy protocol. You have to use the client provided by GOG. (and afaik the embedded chromium framework is not used for downloading the game files, just for displaying all the web stuff).

I would still agree with you insofar as I wouldn't classify requiring a client only for downloading the game files as DRM. But there is still quite a difference between the two delivery methods.
Requiring a specific proprietary client using a proprietary API definitely puts additional restrictions on the user and limits its choices. Which I would call a bad thing.

And let's be honest, if GOG where to make such a move all this semantic debate on whether they technically did or did not break their promises is futile. As you said, people very much like the standalone installers and if they go away there will be an angry mob in the streets :p

I totally agree with you there is a difference sure, but my argument is that difference doesn't qualify as making Galaxy somehow have DRM which we agree on by the looks of it. Also nor am I advocating getting rid of standalone installers, those came in handy from me personally when in college as I could download the installers on computers where I could not install Galaxy.

But yea I completely agree there is a difference between the delivery methods, I just don't agree that by getting rid of standalone installers that somehow makes GOG less DRM free compared to how it currently stands now. That not even really an opinion when you look at the facts.

But that doesn't mean we can't say streamline this process some. If GOG eventually adds install scripts to all of the games on Galaxy and then this could be combined on Galaxy and site. Instead of an installer, GOG could provide the compressed files with the install script. This would take less resources on GOG's end (since the wouldn't have to manually create an installer like they do now) and the would essentially be using the same work already done for Galaxy and still give people a way to install games without Galaxy.

Doesn't multiplayer functionality require Galaxy?

What does that have to do with the games files which was in the context of that statement? It still the same game files regardless of needing Galaxy for online MP.

Just within the last week or two (I think) many stand-alone installers got an "update" that was nothing more than stuff to help them work with Galaxy, you can check the What did just update thread for specific games. Why add that junk to the stand-alone installers unless they are trying to push/force us to use their imitation steam client?